I think every argument I've seen against astrology on this thread has basically gone like this, "I don't think astrology is true. I mean, why would the stars have any correlation with our personalities! It hasn't been scientifically proven..."

Considering that last sentence has been the most highly represented argument, and that astrology is not really scientifically falsifiable or verifiable, it's a moot point. That anyone would even use it... well, let's not go there...

To me the question we should be asking re the potential usefulness of astrology, as seems to have been studiously missed by most people despite my attempts at explaining the point (and perhaps one or two others, though I believe mine was the most explicit), is not "Why should it work?", but "Whether there is any evidence that it does work, and if so, in what respects?"

Supposing that the phenomenon itself is disproven because a mechanism cannot be indicated (or those that can be advanced can be easily disproven) is merely to engage in the fallacy of denying the antecedent. Anyone who can't see that could do with sharpening up their critical thinking skills a bit, frankly. In the absence of any compelling evidence there is no conclusive reason to consider either a "for" or "against" belief to be more correct. However, it is simply wrong to claim primacy for your "against" belief on the grounds that it can be objectively disproven by science when the claim proceeds from demonstrably fallacious reasoning.

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

From my view of things, everyone has just been babbling on from their preconceived notions.

This is just one of those subjects that seems to attract a preponderance of people with entrenched beliefs on either side; it's a bit like those discussions which attempt to prove or disprove the existence of God, or the superiority or inferiority of a set of political beliefs.

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

I'm not sure whether I've even heard the sound of an open mind on this thread, aside maybe from ragashree's (but I didn't really read his/her posts to carefully, so...).

Ah, well, I'm used to it, not too many people DO seem to read my posts carefully if their responses are anything to go by! (this thread contains some prime examples...!)

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

I think the most telling example is here:

Originally Posted by Tater Typhoon
Why? Because there is nothing more to learn from the universe than physical laws and how they interact.

Really? Is this so?

This is a very clear explanation of a very particular cosmological view of the world. And I think it's clear that all those who have argued against the veracity of astrology have basically held this same view. This is not surprising, for, if one holds rigidly to this particular cosmological view, there is no way one will be open to the possibility of astrology being true.

I always find it fascinating to read such statements, and wonder whence it is that people obtain this steadfast certainty regarding the nature of things, a certainty which I am aware that I lack. It almost makes me feel inadequate, to know I can never believe so fully in something on the basis of my own necessarily limited knowledge that there is no room for doubt or openness to alterntate possibilites.

Perhaps there are just a lot of other people around who are so much more intelligent and insightful than I that they have penetrated the very fabric of reality and discovered for themselves the fundamental Truths of existence, whilst I, still in search of further knowledge, must remain forever condemmed to doubt and uncertainty. Or maybe some people just wouldn't recognise the scientific concept that our current state of knowledge is necessarily tentative if it jumped up and slapped them in the face? Hmm, on balance, perhaps I prefer the latter...